This may well be a case study for the contentious, complicated relationship between science, scientists and the news media. Are they “Clever as a” Fox Science News? What is the price of provocation, if it requires misrepresentation of the facts?

Getting old is an unavoidable truth of life. And yet, for most of modern history this mortal coil has baffled scientists. Over the past decade, however, researchers have made great strides in understanding the cellular, molecular, and genetic tableau of aging–which has brought the next question into sharp focus: Can aging be stopped? While a full answer remains elusive, recent advancements have opened the door for significantly extending the human lifespan. One controversial researcher even claims that the first person who will live 1,000 years has already been born. Mainstream researchers are decidedly more cautious in their predictions, but the prospect of postponing mortality, even in modest ways, raises important ethical, social, and practical questions. How would we control an increasingly out-of-control global population? Does life have meaning without death? Even if we could live forever, would we want to?

We have this program called From Dust to …: The Radical New Science of Longevity. One of the participants, Aubrey de Grey, has some pretty far-out ideas. He believes that the first person who’ll live to be 1,000 years old has already been born. That certainly rankles many other scientists who work in the field, so it should be a very lively conversation about where we stand in understanding the aging process. Can we slow it? Can we stop it? What does that mean?